Appeal 6003691

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of 3 [name] (No 3), with particular regard to outlook; and • character and appearance of the host property and area.

Both the appeal property (No 1) and No 3 have two storey rear extensions which are set on the opposite sides of their respective plots leaving a gap of built form between these extensions in both the plots of No 1 and No 3. The gap contributes positively to the living conditions of the occupants by providing space and outlook through a lack of built form on the shared boundary.

The appeal proposal would infill this gap within the appeal site, introducing bulk and massing in very close proximity to the shared boundary of No 3 and extending past its rear building line. The extension would be single storey in stature where the eaves would be set just above the height of the existing fenceline. However, due to the considerable depth and immediate proximity of the proposed extension to the plot of No 3, this would create an enclosing and overbearing effect on the rear garden space and windows of No 3 harming the outlook of these occupiers. This would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No

The removal of the boundary fence as suggested by the appellant would not result in an improved outlook for the occupiers of No 3 given the height of the extension is taller than the fence.

I note that this proposal has been designed to overcome a previous refusal of planning permission at the appeal site by reducing the height of the extension and maintaining a small gap at the boundary. Nevertheless, this does not negate the harm caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3 that would be caused by the design aspects of the proposal before me that I have identified.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (2023) (LP). This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure development proposals take account of the amenity of the development’s neighbours, including expecting proposals to not result in an overly enclosed form of development which materially impacts the outlook of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The rear of the properties set along the terrace of [name] have been subject to a range and variety of rear and roof extensions. As a result, the rear of the terrace has a varied appearance. In particular, the appeal property has been subject to a dormer extension on the roof along with a two storey rear extension, and a conservatory which is proposed for demolition.

Whilst the host property has already been subject to a number of extensions, owing to the modest single storey scale of the proposed extension it would appear in proportion with the host property. The depth of the extension would not be so excessive that it overwhelms the remaining plot, and a sufficient amount of garden space would be retained to be in keeping with the pattern of development. In addition, its duel pitched roof would be in keeping with the two-storey extension which also utilises a double pitch.

Furthermore, due to the variety of the appearance of the rear of the properties along [name], it would appear in keeping with the wider terrace, even in combination with its existing extensions.

The proposal would therefore not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and area and would comply with Policy DM9 of the LP in this regard. This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure development is of a high quality of design that relates positively to their context.

The proposal would improve the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal property by providing additional floor space. However, this is a personal benefit of the scheme, and it therefore attracts limited weight in favour of the development. This would not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.